Can a living kidney donor become a kidney recipient?

The living kidney donor represents a good resource for kidney transplantation. These grafts display better function and long-term graft survival at 5 and 10 years of follow-up. Furthermore, living donors prefer the possibility to increase kidney donation for a large waiting list of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, kidney donation is a major surgical procedure associated with benefits and risks. The risks of donation have been studied in large series of living donors to focus on morbidity and mortality rates associated with the surgical procedure. New surgical laparoscopic techniques promote living kidney donation. While the benefits to the recipient are obvious, those for the donor are subjective and not quantifiable. However, donors describe donation as a great experience in life. The risk of kidney donation may be divided into the perioperative and the long-term risks. The evaluate the long-term risks for kidney donors requires a long follow-up. The main source of kidney donors in our transplant center has been living-related and -unrelated donors, with a minor percentage of cadaveric donors. In this report we present four kidney donors who developed ESRD thereafter, three becoming kidney recipients.     

Misattributed paternity in a living related donor: to disclose or not to disclose?

Many ethical considerations surround living kidney donation, some of which are not anticipated. We present a case in which misattributed paternity was inadvertently discovered during the workup of a father and son and present arguments for and against disclosure of this information. We recommend that transplant programs advise patients participating in living organ donor programs that misattributed paternity might be discovered during routine preoperative testing and that protocols for dealing with complex ethical issues be in place.     

Preemptive living donor kidney transplantation: do the benefits extend to all recipients?

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplantation (prior to the institution of dialysis) avoids the morbidity and mortality of dialysis; however, detailed studies of high-risk patients are lacking. The aim of the current study was to compare recent outcomes of preemptive (P) versus nonpreemptive (NP) living donor kidney transplantation with an emphasis on high-risk recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 438 sequential solitary living donor kidney transplants at our institution between January 2000 and December 2002. In all, 44% were preemptive. NP recipients were dialyzed for 21+/-36 months (range 1-312 months). RESULTS: Overall, three-year patient survival was similar in the NP and P groups. When stratified by diabetes and age >65 years, P and NP recipients again showed similar survival. Death-censored three-year graft survival was better in the P group (97% vs. 90%, P=0.01), but was not significant by multivariate analysis. Delayed graft function was more frequent in NP vs. P (10% vs. 4%; P=0.01), but other early complications were similar including: acute rejection, 16% vs. 11% (P=0.11); primary nonfunction, 3% vs. 2% (P=0.38); and wound complications, 19% vs. 17% (P=0.54). Glomerular filtration rate at three years was similar in the two groups (53+/-23 preemptive vs. 52+/-20 ml/min nonpreemptive; P=0.37). CONCLUSION: With prompt referral and workup, preemptive kidney transplantation can be performed successfully in a large percentage of renal allograft recipients. Preemptive transplantation avoids unnecessary dialysis and should be emphasized as initial therapy for many patients with end-stage renal disease.     

Preoperative evaluation of pediatric kidney stone prior to percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is computed tomography really necessary?

The objective of the study was to investigate the precise role of computed tomography (CT) in preoperative radiologic evaluation and surgical planning of kidney stone in children prior to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). A total of 113 pediatric patients (aged ≤18 years) undergoing PNL for renal stone(s) in three referral hospitals between March 2010 and August 2012 were retrospectively evaluated. Depending on the preoperative radiologic evaluation, patients were divided into two groups. Those evaluated with CT were classified as group-1 (n = 50) and the remaining cases undergoing intravenous urography (IVU) examination were classified as group-2 (n = 63). Patient- and procedure-related variables and perioperative measures were compared between the groups. The mean age, stone size and localization were similar in both groups (p = 0.07, p = 0.57, p = 0.6, respectively). Although the postoperative hemoglobin drop was found to be significantly higher in group-2 (1.5 ± 1.3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.6 g/dL, p = 0.005), the mean operation time, fluoroscopic screening time, access number, overall success and complication rates were comparable (p = 0.06, p = 0.94, p = 0.75, p = 041, and p = 0.41, respectively). However, the mean hospitalization time was significantly prolonged in group-2 than in group-1 (p = 0.03). Our findings clearly demonstrate that, despite the key role of preoperative CT in particular patients with anatomically abnormal kidneys, IVU is a valuable alternative imaging modality with comparable radiation doses in children.     

Use of stenting in living donor kidney transplantation: does it reduce vesicoureteral complications?

The risk of urologic complications after kidney transplantation is 0% to 30%. We studied the impact of prophylactic stent placement during transplantation by assessing the necessity for a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) after living kidney transplantation. From January 2003 to December 2007, 342 living donor kidney transplantations were performed. Intra- and postoperative data were collected retrospectively from 285 patients with stent and 57 without. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups, except for the number of previous transplantations: 31 (11%) patients with versus 16 (28%) without stent had a history of >1 transplantation (P < .001). From patients with PCN, 55 (87%) patients in the stented group received a PCN <3 months versus 11 (100%) in the nonstented group (P = .71). The reoperation rate for urologic complications was similar in both groups (3% (stented) versus 5% (nonstented; P = .43). In multivariate analysis, risk for PCN was similar in both groups (odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 0.5-2.5). Recipient survival was not significantly different. One- and 3-year death-censored graft survival was not significantly different between stented (89% and 84%) and nonstented group (90% and 85%, P = .71 and P = .96). Ureteral stent insertion is not associated with a reduced rate of PCN placement in living donor kidney transplantation.     

The dilemma of living liver donor death: to report or not to report?

Living donor liver transplantation has become a life-saving alternative for end-stage liver disease patients who have no chance of receiving a deceased donor organ. On the basis of information available to the medical community, mortality risk for the living donor is reviewed and implications of not reporting donor deaths are discussed.     

How can we increase living related donor renal transplantations?

BACKGROUND: In Japan, living donor renal transplantation has gained momentum due to an increased number of patients with end-stage renal disease. Living donation not only provides better outcomes, but also the recipients usually need less medications, thereby increasing the quality of life and reducing the potential side effects of immunosuppression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the past 25 years, our center had performed 140 open donor nephrectomy (OPNx) renal transplantations. Since July 2003, we changed our procurement operation to living hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALNx) in 49 cases. Our operative technique consisted of two 12-mm ports placed in the midaxillary line at the superior and inferior levels of the umbilicus. Next, a 5-cm incision was made in the midline periumbilicus and the hand port system fitted through a midline abdominal incision. RESULTS: In 49 cases, HALNx was completed successfully; no patient required conversion to laparotomy. The estimated blood loss was 33.0 +/- 43.4 g and no patient required blood transfusion. In comparison, in OPNx the blood loss was 426.5 +/- 247.6 g (P < .001). The mean operative times were 167.4 +/- 39.7 minutes for HALNx and 228.4 +/- 35.7 minutes for OPNx (P < .001). The postoperative hospital stays were 9.1 +/- 3.8 days for HALNx and 13.0 +/- 1.9 days for OPNx (P < .001). For 3 years prior to introduction of HALNx, we had performed only 10 living donor renal transplantations. Since the introduction of HALNx in 2003, the number of living donors has tripled during the following 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Herein we have reported that HALNx was superior in terms of less operative time and blood loss, postoperative pain and recovery, and shorter hospital stay. Overall donor patient satisfaction was also better in the HALNx group. HALNx is a safe procedure that makes kidney donation more appealing to potential live donors and has increased the living donor pool at our center.     

Kaposi’s sarcoma following living donor kidney transplantation: review of 7,939 recipients

Introduction  Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) is one of the most common tumors to occur in kidney recipients, especially in the Middle East countries. Limited data with adequate sample size exist about the development of KS in living kidney recipients. Methods  Therefore, we made a plan for a multicenter study, accounting for up to 36% (n = 7,939) of all kidney transplantation in Iran, to determine the incidence of KS after kidney transplantation between 1984 and 2007. Results  Fifty-five (0.69%) recipients who developed KS after kidney transplantation were retrospectively evaluated with a median follow-up of 24 (1–180) months. KS occurred more often in older age when compared to patients without KS (49 ± 12 vs. 38 ± 15 years, P = 0.000). KS was frequently found during the first 2 years after transplantation (72.7%). Skin involvement was universal. Furthermore, overall mortality rate was 18%, and it was higher in patients with visceral involvement compared to those with mucocutaneous lesions (P = 0.01). However, KS had no adverse affect on patient and graft survival rates compared to those without KS. Forty-four patients with limited mucocutaneous disease and four with visceral disease responded to withdrawal or reduction of immunosuppression with or without other treatment modalities. Renal function was preserved when immunosuppression was reduced instead of withdrawn in patients with and without visceral involvement (P = 0.001 and 0.008, respectively). Conclusion  The high incidence of KS in this large population studied, as compared to that reported in other transplant patient groups, suggests that genetic predisposition may play a pathogenetic role.     

Does preserved kidney volume predict 1 year donor renal function after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy?

The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether preserved kidney volume predicts donor renal function at 1‐year post‐surgery. Data of patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between October 2006 and September 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent computed tomography scan with an estimation of kidney volume by using an automated segmentation algorithm. We also calculated kidney volume adjusted for donor body surface area and donor preserved kidney volume ratio (split volume). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was estimated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. Predictors of the estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year were assessed by multiple linear regression. The 1‐year estimated glomerular filtration rate was available in 140 patients. The median age was 40 years, and median adjusted preserved kidney volume was 160.5 cc/1.73 m² (interquartile range 143.7–177.9). Median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 92.4 (interquartile range 81.9–101.2) and 61.2 mL/min/1.73 m² (interquartile range 53.4–68.7), respectively, at baseline and at 1 year. Preserved kidney volume adjusted to body surface area (P = 0.02) with age (P = 0.002) and preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year. However, split kidney volume was not statistically related to estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year (P = 0.47). In order to maximize preservation of donor renal function, the pre‐donation kidney volume adjusted to body surface area might be a useful parameter to consider when deciding on living kidney donation.     

Does donor kidney to recipient body weight ratio influence long-term outcomes of living-donor kidney transplantation?

This study evaluated the effect of the donor kidney to recipient body weight (Kw/Rw) ratio on long-term graft function and survival. We investigated retrospectively whether there was any association between Kw/Rw ratio and long-term graft survival and function after a follow-up of >10 years. We studied a consecutive series of 123 adult-to-adult living kidney transplants. According to the Kw/Rw ratio, patients were divided into 3 groups: “low” (Kw/Rw <2.85; n = 29), “medium” (2.85 ≤ Kw/Rw < 4.04; n = 63), and “high” (≥4.04; n = 31). Among the 3 groups, the mean serum creatinine levels at 1 and 6 months as well as 1 year after transplantation were significantly lower among patients with a high Kw/Rw ratio than in those with a medium or low ratio, but serum creatinine levels at 3 and 5 years did not differ significantly (P = .394 and 0.620, respectively). Graft survival rates at 5 and 10 years after transplantation were significantly lower in the “low” group. We observed a significant association between Kw/Rw ratio and graft survival (P = .018). The Kw/Rw ratio is an important factor for long-term graft survival and early graft function. However, it did not significantly affect subsequent renal function.